8 ms·

Adult Neurogenesis – A Pointed Review

115 points by mantesso 9y ago

kragen 9y ago
I've wondered for a long time if stem cell therapy could, for example, cure my amblyopia — though it hardly seems worth the cancer risk. This very surprising news is a data point in favor of that kind of thing. It's also a kind of data point that we really need to improve science a lot in order to be able to advance as a civilization. (Amblyopia is due to anomalous neural development caused by, more or less, early childhood early sensory deprivation from one eye. The result is a lifelong lack of visual competence in that eye — it may focus perfectly, as mine does, but recognition is poor, apparently because perception of Gabors at certain spatial frequencies is very poor. I say "more or less" because the eye is still providing sensory input, but because it's pointing in the wrong direction, that input isn't useful.)
- berdon 9y ago
  This is more speculative than anything: have you tried eye-patching the good eye to force your brain into being trained to use the bad one? Specifically for a long period of time (months).
  - kragen 9y ago
    Yes, I did that 12 hours a day for five years in my early childhood, starting at 2 years old. Before that, I couldn't see out of my left eye at all.
    - ckemere 9y ago
      Neural progenitor transfer works in mice - http://science.sciencemag.org/content/327/5969/1145 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/327/5969/1145
    - berdon 9y ago
      I wonder if you would have better results if you did it 100% of the time. I wonder if training was hindered simply because other neural pathways would still "win" after the 12 hours each day. But all of this speculation is centered around neural growth and formation - I have no idea what could have happened because of lack of use during development (ie. atrophy, etc).
- throwaway_ghhje 9y ago
  This may sound weird but: try lsd (1p-lsd - a legal analog - in my case). I have amblyopia too (although milder, refractive). It comes with a total lack of stereoscopic vision. 300ug (100ug wasn't enough) of 1p-lsd turned it on for about a week, getting progressively weaker each day. While on 1p-lsd the vision in my weaker eye was way, way better than normally, very close to the dominant eye! Unfortunately it got worse immediately after and remained only slightly better for days. It's not a cure (who knows though - brains are weird) but the temporary experience of true 3d was well worth it. Depth suddenly became an _equivalent_ dimension to width and height - it's impossible to describe. I suddenly understood why I always sucked at ball sports and for the first time in my life became mildly afraid of heights - not an irrational phobia, but as normal people do (normally I have absolutely zero automatic fear of heights which is perhaps why I enjoy free climbing). If you decide to try it, do it on an empty stomach and drink only water, have some place to lie down. The come up for heavy doses sucks because body thinks that it ate something poisonous - nausea, urge to vomit, sweating. It passes after about 1.5h. Mentally 300ug is way below that required to lose contact with the reality so no danger here. Decided to use a throwaway to not have an admission of drug use on my current account.
savanaly 9y ago
Clearly humans care a lot about neurogenesis not just because understanding whether it happens in humans would be a stepping stone to building a robust model of how cognition happens, but also because intuitively it has to do with whether we can enhance our own mental abilities in our lifetime-- one of the most fervent desires of many, I'm sure. We've already had to write off things like growth mindset as a way to increase our fluid intelligence, it seems. It is dismaying that, based on this study, we'll have to write off things like exercise as well which we now realize only work in rats. What's left that could plausibly help? Perhaps just: building better work and study habits and simply spending more time on mental tasks. At least we're pretty sure those aren't illusory.
- jackstraw14 9y ago
  They are not illusory, but I think people run into problems finding a structure or deeper meaning that cements those good habits into their daily life. They just become more “to do” items on our daily growing list of shit to do. What is illusory, is that something outside of human perception will “fix” a perception problem. Something like repetitive exertion, like exercising... that is not a solution if there is a core perception problem in that person’s lens. As long as a “fix” or “solution” is being sought, it will always be temporary unless it opens up something in the person that allows them to see the original issue. But most often that stuff is used like a multivitamin, and people forget the significance of the fragile foundations they’re laying down as stuff to make the “rest of their life” possible. And they just move their attention to something else, something like watching Netflix instead of thinking about why they have such a hard time getting up to exercise in the first place. It’s a spiritual problem.
  - contingo 9y ago
    It's a fascination problem. Everything falls into place when what genuinely deeply interests you coincides with your work, with the source of your motivation to work, and with the source of your mental fitness to do the work. When I think of long-lived scientists, mathematicians, composers, artists who produce brilliant work into old age, these are people who never lose fascination for what they do.
subroutine 9y ago
Last week a paper came out saying no adult neurogenesis. But I see today this paper came out: http://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/fulltext/S1934-5909(18)30121-8 http://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/fulltext/S1934-5909(18)30... It usually flips every month.
- madeuptempacct 9y ago
  "It flips every month." This is very much true. We know that studying a new subject, language, or skill (instrument, chess) will increase G. We also suspect that the following will: * Cardiovascular fitness * Working memory training It amusing how few real, decent studies there are on all of these.
- bitwize 9y ago
  They're confusing something else with neurogenesis.
  - subroutine 9y ago
    Probably. But to clarify you think something besides immature GNs in the granular zone expresses DCX and PSA-NCAM but not NeuN? I have my idea; I just want to hear yours.
    - SubiculumCode 9y ago
      Why don't you go for it? I'd like to hear.
      - subroutine 9y ago
        glial cells moonlighting, by expressing the molecular marker signature of young neurons.
    - SubiculumCode 9y ago
      And in terms of papers like Spalding et al., 2013 which "assessed the generation of hippocampal cells in humans by measuring the concentration of nuclear-bomb-test-derived 14C in genomic DNA"? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867413005333 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009286741...
cobbzilla 9y ago
Fun article. Best line: "if we want to believe something, it will accrete a protective layer of positive studies whether it’s true or not."
cdcox 9y ago
While this comes to the right conclusion I think it mistraces a lot of the issues. For example: a fair amount of the depression and neurogenesis studies (and indeed neurogenesis manipulation studies) suffered from the same issue: it's really hard to make a population of cells die without generally poisioning the remaining cells. Most of the initial studies relied on things like radiation, ie radiate a rat and it starts acting depressed. There is now increasing evidence that radiation kills off a bunch of synapses and causes some wicked disregualtion across the system so that turned out to be wrong. Conversely BDNF enhances neurogenesis but it also enhances synaptic learning so even positive manipulations had this issue but in reverse. Newer timed genetic manipulation studies were more precise but the depression-neurogenesis link has been slowly losing steam in light of these studies. But the BIG issue boils down to this: there was never strong evidence for the importance of neurogenesis. The dentate gyrus is a tiny region of the brain with neurons that act in unusual ways. In humans it's an even tinier region. While it is probably required, at least as a pass through, to learn new memories, it's surprising how much weight people were placing on neurogenesis in this tiny tiny structure. Given, networks can make small zones have big effects, but the weight of evidence should have always been on people pushing the area to prove the dentate was this massively important structure. This has not been conclusively done (studies have linked it to some specific subtypes of learning but those have limited it as much as they have found an important role for it). This is a structural issue in science broadly, there is an incentive to push forward with the next big finding but no incentive to go back and confirm the gulf of assumptions that a literature is resting on. The good news is, human brains could always change, synaptic plasticity is present throughout life and has been shown by many good studies to occur throughout adulthood. We don't need new cells in a tiny part of the brain to learn new things, networks rewire and while that rewiring isn't something as dramatic as new cells, small effects can lead to big outcomes in dynamic systems. People obviously make new habits, learn new skills, and make new memories throughout life. The onus should have always been on science to show why it occurs, not to lend credibility that it occurs.
garyrob 9y ago
A recent study[0] seems to provide meaningful evidence that while adult neurogenesis occurs in rats, rabbits and some other species, as mentioned in the research referred to by the OP, it does not actually occur in humans. I'm not claiming to know the truth on this, but I thought this research should be part of the discussion. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/03/do-adult-brains-make-new-neurons-a-contentious-new-study-says-no/555026/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/03/do-adult...
- Tenobrus 9y ago
  You didn't read the second half of the article.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- SubiculumCode 9y ago
  :) Its kind of the point of the whole article, FYI.
- garyrob 9y ago
  Oh wow, thank you so much for filling me in. I didn't read the whole thing because it was quoting a lot of animal studies, which I knew were questionable in light of the adult human research, and I was aware of no reason to expect the turnaround in part 2! :) You were very kind about it. Sorry for wasting everyone's time!

115 points by mantesso 9y ago

I've wondered for a long time if stem cell therapy could, for example, cure my amblyopia — though it hardly seems worth the cancer risk. This very surprising news is a data point in favor of that kind of thing. It's also a kind of data point that we really need to improve science a lot in order to be able to advance as a civilization. (Amblyopia is due to anomalous neural development caused by, more or less, early childhood early sensory deprivation from one eye. The result is a lifelong lack of visual competence in that eye — it may focus perfectly, as mine does, but recognition is poor, apparently because perception of Gabors at certain spatial frequencies is very poor. I say "more or less" because the eye is still providing sensory input, but because it's pointing in the wrong direction, that input isn't useful.)

berdon 9y ago
This is more speculative than anything: have you tried eye-patching the good eye to force your brain into being trained to use the bad one? Specifically for a long period of time (months).
- kragen 9y ago
  Yes, I did that 12 hours a day for five years in my early childhood, starting at 2 years old. Before that, I couldn't see out of my left eye at all.
  - ckemere 9y ago
    Neural progenitor transfer works in mice - http://science.sciencemag.org/content/327/5969/1145 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/327/5969/1145
  - berdon 9y ago
    I wonder if you would have better results if you did it 100% of the time. I wonder if training was hindered simply because other neural pathways would still "win" after the 12 hours each day. But all of this speculation is centered around neural growth and formation - I have no idea what could have happened because of lack of use during development (ie. atrophy, etc).
throwaway_ghhje 9y ago
This may sound weird but: try lsd (1p-lsd - a legal analog - in my case). I have amblyopia too (although milder, refractive). It comes with a total lack of stereoscopic vision. 300ug (100ug wasn't enough) of 1p-lsd turned it on for about a week, getting progressively weaker each day. While on 1p-lsd the vision in my weaker eye was way, way better than normally, very close to the dominant eye! Unfortunately it got worse immediately after and remained only slightly better for days. It's not a cure (who knows though - brains are weird) but the temporary experience of true 3d was well worth it. Depth suddenly became an _equivalent_ dimension to width and height - it's impossible to describe. I suddenly understood why I always sucked at ball sports and for the first time in my life became mildly afraid of heights - not an irrational phobia, but as normal people do (normally I have absolutely zero automatic fear of heights which is perhaps why I enjoy free climbing). If you decide to try it, do it on an empty stomach and drink only water, have some place to lie down. The come up for heavy doses sucks because body thinks that it ate something poisonous - nausea, urge to vomit, sweating. It passes after about 1.5h. Mentally 300ug is way below that required to lose contact with the reality so no danger here. Decided to use a throwaway to not have an admission of drug use on my current account.

savanaly 9y ago

Clearly humans care a lot about neurogenesis not just because understanding whether it happens in humans would be a stepping stone to building a robust model of how cognition happens, but also because intuitively it has to do with whether we can enhance our own mental abilities in our lifetime-- one of the most fervent desires of many, I'm sure. We've already had to write off things like growth mindset as a way to increase our fluid intelligence, it seems. It is dismaying that, based on this study, we'll have to write off things like exercise as well which we now realize only work in rats. What's left that could plausibly help? Perhaps just: building better work and study habits and simply spending more time on mental tasks. At least we're pretty sure those aren't illusory.

jackstraw14 9y ago
They are not illusory, but I think people run into problems finding a structure or deeper meaning that cements those good habits into their daily life. They just become more “to do” items on our daily growing list of shit to do. What is illusory, is that something outside of human perception will “fix” a perception problem. Something like repetitive exertion, like exercising... that is not a solution if there is a core perception problem in that person’s lens. As long as a “fix” or “solution” is being sought, it will always be temporary unless it opens up something in the person that allows them to see the original issue. But most often that stuff is used like a multivitamin, and people forget the significance of the fragile foundations they’re laying down as stuff to make the “rest of their life” possible. And they just move their attention to something else, something like watching Netflix instead of thinking about why they have such a hard time getting up to exercise in the first place. It’s a spiritual problem.
- contingo 9y ago
  It's a fascination problem. Everything falls into place when what genuinely deeply interests you coincides with your work, with the source of your motivation to work, and with the source of your mental fitness to do the work. When I think of long-lived scientists, mathematicians, composers, artists who produce brilliant work into old age, these are people who never lose fascination for what they do.

subroutine 9y ago

Last week a paper came out saying no adult neurogenesis. But I see today this paper came out: http://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/fulltext/S1934-5909(18)30121-8 http://www.cell.com/cell-stem-cell/fulltext/S1934-5909(18)30... It usually flips every month.

madeuptempacct 9y ago
"It flips every month." This is very much true. We know that studying a new subject, language, or skill (instrument, chess) will increase G. We also suspect that the following will: * Cardiovascular fitness * Working memory training It amusing how few real, decent studies there are on all of these.
bitwize 9y ago
They're confusing something else with neurogenesis.
- subroutine 9y ago
  Probably. But to clarify you think something besides immature GNs in the granular zone expresses DCX and PSA-NCAM but not NeuN? I have my idea; I just want to hear yours.
  - SubiculumCode 9y ago
    Why don't you go for it? I'd like to hear.
    - subroutine 9y ago
      glial cells moonlighting, by expressing the molecular marker signature of young neurons.
  - SubiculumCode 9y ago
    And in terms of papers like Spalding et al., 2013 which "assessed the generation of hippocampal cells in humans by measuring the concentration of nuclear-bomb-test-derived 14C in genomic DNA"? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867413005333 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009286741...

cobbzilla 9y ago

Fun article. Best line: "if we want to believe something, it will accrete a protective layer of positive studies whether it’s true or not."

cdcox 9y ago

While this comes to the right conclusion I think it mistraces a lot of the issues. For example: a fair amount of the depression and neurogenesis studies (and indeed neurogenesis manipulation studies) suffered from the same issue: it's really hard to make a population of cells die without generally poisioning the remaining cells. Most of the initial studies relied on things like radiation, ie radiate a rat and it starts acting depressed. There is now increasing evidence that radiation kills off a bunch of synapses and causes some wicked disregualtion across the system so that turned out to be wrong. Conversely BDNF enhances neurogenesis but it also enhances synaptic learning so even positive manipulations had this issue but in reverse. Newer timed genetic manipulation studies were more precise but the depression-neurogenesis link has been slowly losing steam in light of these studies. But the BIG issue boils down to this: there was never strong evidence for the importance of neurogenesis. The dentate gyrus is a tiny region of the brain with neurons that act in unusual ways. In humans it's an even tinier region. While it is probably required, at least as a pass through, to learn new memories, it's surprising how much weight people were placing on neurogenesis in this tiny tiny structure. Given, networks can make small zones have big effects, but the weight of evidence should have always been on people pushing the area to prove the dentate was this massively important structure. This has not been conclusively done (studies have linked it to some specific subtypes of learning but those have limited it as much as they have found an important role for it). This is a structural issue in science broadly, there is an incentive to push forward with the next big finding but no incentive to go back and confirm the gulf of assumptions that a literature is resting on. The good news is, human brains could always change, synaptic plasticity is present throughout life and has been shown by many good studies to occur throughout adulthood. We don't need new cells in a tiny part of the brain to learn new things, networks rewire and while that rewiring isn't something as dramatic as new cells, small effects can lead to big outcomes in dynamic systems. People obviously make new habits, learn new skills, and make new memories throughout life. The onus should have always been on science to show why it occurs, not to lend credibility that it occurs.

garyrob 9y ago

A recent study[0] seems to provide meaningful evidence that while adult neurogenesis occurs in rats, rabbits and some other species, as mentioned in the research referred to by the OP, it does not actually occur in humans. I'm not claiming to know the truth on this, but I thought this research should be part of the discussion. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/03/do-adult-brains-make-new-neurons-a-contentious-new-study-says-no/555026/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/03/do-adult...

Tenobrus 9y ago
You didn't read the second half of the article.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
SubiculumCode 9y ago
:) Its kind of the point of the whole article, FYI.
garyrob 9y ago
Oh wow, thank you so much for filling me in. I didn't read the whole thing because it was quoting a lot of animal studies, which I knew were questionable in light of the adult human research, and I was aware of no reason to expect the turnaround in part 2! :) You were very kind about it. Sorry for wasting everyone's time!